From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Rewrite "KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS" section
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:13:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190219161334.GA28803@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190218165007.GC16713@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
[+more ppc folks]
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 04:50:12PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:27:09AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Note that even if mmiowb() is expensive (and I don't think that's
> > actually even the case on ia64), you can - and probably should - do
> > what PowerPC does.
> >
> > Doing an IO barrier on PowerPC is insanely expensive, but they solve
> > that simply track the whole "have I done any IO" manually. It's not
> > even that expensive, it just uses a percpu flag.
> >
> > (Admittedly, PowerPC makes it less obvious that it's a percpu variable
> > because it's actually in the special "paca" region that is like a
> > hyper-local percpu area).
[...]
> > But we *could* first just do the mmiowb() unconditionally in the ia64
> > unlocking code, and then see if anybody notices?
>
> I'll hack this up as a starting point. We can always try to be clever later
> on if it's deemed necessary.
Ok, so I started hacking this up in core code with the percpu flag (since
riscv apparently needs it), but I've now realised that I don't understand
how the PowerPC trick works after all. Consider the following:
spin_lock(&foo); // io_sync = 0
outb(42, port); // io_sync = 1
spin_lock(&bar); // io_sync = 0
...
spin_unlock(&bar);
spin_unlock(&foo);
The inner lock could even happen in an irq afaict, but we'll end up skipping
the mmiowb()/sync because the io_sync flag is unconditionally cleared by
spin_lock(). Fixing this is complicated by the fact that I/O writes can be
performed in preemptible context with no locks held, so we can end up
spuriously setting the io_sync flag for arbitrary CPUs, hence the desire
to clear it in spin_lock().
If the paca entry was more than a byte, we could probably track that a
spinlock is held and then avoid clearing the flag prematurely, but I have
a feeling that I'm missing something. Anybody know how this is supposed to
work?
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-19 16:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-11 17:29 [RFC PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Rewrite "KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS" section Will Deacon
2019-02-11 17:29 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-11 20:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-11 20:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-12 18:43 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-12 18:43 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-12 19:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-12 19:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-11 22:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-02-11 22:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-02-12 4:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2019-02-12 4:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2019-02-13 17:20 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-13 17:20 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-13 18:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-02-13 18:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-02-13 18:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-13 18:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-13 18:43 ` Luck, Tony
2019-02-13 18:43 ` Luck, Tony
2019-02-13 19:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 19:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-18 16:50 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-18 16:50 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-19 16:13 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2019-02-19 16:13 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-21 6:22 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-02-21 6:22 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-02-22 17:38 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-22 17:38 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-12 13:03 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-02-12 13:03 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-02-18 16:29 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-18 16:29 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-18 16:59 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-02-18 16:59 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-02-18 17:56 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-18 17:56 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-18 20:37 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-02-18 20:37 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-02-19 10:27 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2019-02-19 10:27 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2019-02-19 11:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-02-19 11:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-02-19 11:36 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-19 11:36 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-19 13:01 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-02-19 13:01 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-02-19 13:20 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-19 13:20 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-19 13:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-02-19 13:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-02-19 11:34 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-19 11:34 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190219161334.GA28803@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox